LordSavan wrote:If you all are so concerned for the unborn babies, maybe you should stop your party from burning the planet to a crisp. Another giant hurricane tearing up the country atm, and your still denying global warming. #ripscience

As a conservative, I’d be more than happy to put my resume up against yours in this regard.

I’m confused though, are you implying there are hurricanes because of global warming (they call it climate change btw)? And the reason for climate change is Republicans in the US?

The trend here is you won’t answer these questions because you’ll realize how absurd you sound. What’s really interesting is not one lefty in this thread has been able to produce an opinion based on fact. It’s all been based on pure raw emotion.

Huh? You have zero facts in the above. Just a bunch of assumptions about a) my political affliaction and b) my resume. Ill enlighten you. Im not a leftist or a rightist, i just call it like I see it.The planet is getting hotter. That's a fact. Plenty of people are to blame for that, not just republicans, but you all are so quick to get defensive, lol. Everything is someone elses fault. But in no way is current administration doing anything to help the situation. I asked why your not concerned about the planet our children will inhabit. So please, name a few policies implemented to protect our planet in the last two years.....

The planet gose through natural cycles, humans dont have enough an effect as you think. Its gonna get hotter and itll get colder than usual, and at some point there will be another ice age, not caused by humans. Its the natural way of things.

I didn’t offer any facts in that post. You’re correct. Like you, I to call it like I see it and assumed by your comments you lean left. I’m also going to assume I’m not the only one.

However, you said, “maybe you should stop your party from burning up the planet to a crisp” and followed up by saying “another hurricane is tearing up the planet and you’re still denying global warming.” This is a common tactic used by the left, make an accusation and then question why someone is defensive as to imply guilt is associated with defending yourself.

Let me be clear, I made no assumption about your resume, I am making a challenge to you to put your money where your mouth is. What have you done to curve “global warming” as you call it? I know how many properties/facilities have benefited from my efforts in energy reduction through lighting and motor retrofits. I’m also very proud about how much solar has been installed in NH, MA, CT, NY, NJ, MN, and CA as a direct result of my leadership while working for the nations largest retail clean energy marketing company. The leadership at companies like SunPower, SunRun, and Sungivity are familiar with my work. In 2015, our data showed that we were responsible for just under 3 percent of all residential installs in the US.

You say the planet is getting hotter. Fair enough, let’s just go with that. However you have failed to define what that means. Hotter than yesterday, last week, month, year, decade?

Is the earth hotter today compared to the Neiproterozoic period? How about this, is it hotter today than it was 50 million years ago?

You are basing your fact on very limited data.

I’ll assume you know we’ve only been recording the weather since the mid 1800’s. I’ll also assume you know that the earth is roughly 4-5 billion years old. You may not know H. sapiens are roughly 200k years old and industrialization began in the early to mid 1800s.

Tell us, is it reasonable to come to a conclusion that the climate has changed many times over during the past 5 billion years?

I’d like to see you produce a study that segments and measures the climate in periods of 170 years at a time, over the course of the past 5 billion years, and compares the change in temperature of each segment to that of the most recent past 170 years.

Instead of conveniently looking over the past two years of what the Republicans have done to “help” the situation. Let’s just look at what they’ve done for the solar industry.

Fact: In 2005, President George W. Bush signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This law established the Solar ITC, the major driving force for solar adoption in the US even today. Look at how the dems voted on this bill.

Fact: In 2006, the ITC was extended by the Democratic lead House and Senate.

Fact: 2008 the ITC was extended by a Democratic lead House and Senate.

Fact: in 2017, the Republican lead House and Senate included, untouched, the ITC in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. It’s important to note, there was no obligation to do so.

If you believe climate change is a problem, then fight for it. But don’t use pseudo science to enable you to point a finger at a particular group. Danny Kennedy realized this early in his career and changed the way he fights and it’s actually paid off big. Consider changing your message and keep in mind, you don’t need big government to solve all your problems.[/quote]

Man, I wish I had all the free time you guys do to wax poetical about your favorite political parties. However, the real world beckons my attn from time to time.Im not impressed with your solar panel salesmanship as some type of qualification to discuss atmospheric science. I sure you hype up the dangers to sell your product, if not, your the only solar salesman ive met who doesnt. Its just a different story when you have to prove your ideological leanings. 'The heat trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gasses was demonstrated in the mid 19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infared energy through the atmosphere isthe scientific basis of many insturments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gasses must cause the earth to warm as a response'Thats a quote from NASA bud. Maybe they know a bit more about it than your solar installers. And by the way, though you desperatly want to make this a left/ right thing, there are Republicans who are aware of this and say so. They just get shouted down by the rest of you bleating nonsense.

Idk much about the American court and honestly don’t care but if it’s a 5-4 split that won’t beat the previous majority so how can they overturn it without outnumbering the previous decision? What’s the use of precedent if you can overturn it with every subsequent case?

Idk much about the American court and honestly don’t care but if it’s a 5-4 split that won’t beat the previous majority so how can they overturn it without outnumbering the previous decision? What’s the use of precedent if you can overturn it with every subsequent case?

So, our Supreme Court can hear cases repeatedly, there is no “double jeopardy” in cases sent to the Supreme Court. Now, there is a chance that the Supreme Court could rule in favor of a case/person, however, they still need majority vote to change any precedent when hearing certain cases. We would have to get into individual cases to review this precedent.

LordSavan wrote:Man, I wish I had all the free time you guys do to wax poetical about your favorite political parties. However, the real world beckons my attn from time to time.

Am I the only one who feels that he’s searching for someone’s approval? Should I offer you a high five, hug, beer?

LordSavan wrote:Im not impressed with your solar panel salesmanship as some type of qualification to discuss atmospheric science. I sure you hype up the dangers to sell your product, if not, your the only solar salesman ive met who doesnt.

So let me get this straight, your original comment was something along the lines of “if you’re so worried about the babies, maybe you should tell your party to stop burning the planet to a crisp.” I then challenged you to explain to us what you’ve done to address the issue YOU brought up. Yet instead of accepting my challenge like a man/women/thing (however you identify yourself), you’ve attempted to speak down on what I have accomplished, that by all accounts, has been identified as part of a solution to an issue YOU indentified as an issue.

In light of this, im under the impression that the most you’ve done for the environment is recycle your home made “I hate Trump” sign after you had a good cry with your fellow dirty hippies on the corner of Main Street after the man won the election.

LordSavan wrote:Its just a different story when you have to prove your ideological leanings.

Stop, hold up. I didn’t make an assertion like you did in your first post that was clearly based on your ideological leanings. My response was to ask you to explain your first post which you haven’t.

I later asked you to provide a study that compared time frames to when humanity first started recording weather patterns to that of previous records. I’m still waiting, however this time I realize how important you are as life beckons.

Yet through all your posts, the closest you have got to it is the following...

LordSavan wrote:'The heat trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gasses was demonstrated in the mid 19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infared energy through the atmosphere isthe scientific basis of many insturments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gasses must cause the earth to warm as a response'Thats a quote from NASA bud.

Do you know what pseudoscience is? If you don’t, I encourage you to figure it out.

NASA has used, as their base of interpretation, a study called the “IPCC Assessment Report.” You should read them or at the least set aside some time in your hectic schedule to skim through them.

What’s really interesting about the report is it’s very clear it doesn’t use the scientific method to make a conclusion but instead, uses models and forecasts based on limited data.

This data, as described in the report only considers what has occurred since we started recording the weather. It does not consider any other data from the past 5 billion years, let alone 10,000 that could be used to create a more accurate model. My hunch is, this is why 5% of the 1,500 scientists who were presented the 2014 report, disagreed with the conclusion.

BTW, Domo eluded to this earlier and no rebuttal was offered in response.

If you can manage the time to read about doctor Ignaz Semmelweis, you will find an example of when the consensus of scientists was wrong.

LordSavan wrote:Maybe they know a bit more about it than your solar installers.

We can all take the tine and review it and come to our own conclusion. However, at least our children will be able to say their parents actually did something about it.

LordSavan wrote:And by the way, though you desperatly want to make this a left/ right thing, there are Republicans who are aware of this and say so. They just get shouted down by the rest of you bleating nonsense.

This is cute. I offered truths of what both parties have done. But please reference your first post that was the catalyst for this back and forth, when you said “you should stop your party from burning the planet to a crisp.”

pk79 wrote:Idk much about the American court and honestly don’t care but if it’s a 5-4 split that won’t beat the previous majority so how can they overturn it without outnumbering the previous decision? What’s the use of precedent if you can overturn it with every subsequent case?

So, our Supreme Court can hear cases repeatedly, there is no “double jeopardy” in cases sent to the Supreme Court. Now, there is a chance that the Supreme Court could rule in favor of a case/person, however, they still need majority vote to change any precedent when hearing certain cases. We would have to get into individual cases to review this precedent.

Bella, double jeopardy has nothing to do with the Supreme Court but rather limits the number of times someone can be prosecuted for the same criminal offense occurrence. Once OJ was acquitted for murdering Nicole, he couldn’t be tried again for it.

Everything else you said is correct though. Personally I believe there are pros and cons in the Supreme Courts ability to do so but find it to be a very slippery slope and should be avoided.

PK, the number of the majority isn’t important. A 6-3 vote is the same as a 5-4 vote, one doesn’t carry more weight than the other. I don’t think there’s a clear answer to your last question.

Only the most current vote and decision on a case heard before the court matters....that’s why it’s called an appeal...even if it was 9-0 the 5-4 that is coming down the road here overturns the old standard. And Bella ...double jeopardy has nothing to do with this so stop embarrassing yourself

Original_Belladonna wrote:Making assumptions about my character? I don’t have to tolerate anyone or anything. Just as I am able to tolerate anyone or anything. However one thing I will not tolerate is bold face lies and accusations against myself or what I do and do not know. There are tons of things I know nothing about, and there are tons of things I know a great deal about, Dugan.

This right here is a prime example. I watched both testimonies and listened to how they spoke. I have a background in profiling and can read body language and decipher tones. Kavanaugh didn’t remember it happening, hence why he kept his response as not guilty. There was a tone in his voice that resonated with “I may have done this, but I don’t remember it so I’m going to continue saying I didn’t do this.” and with Ford, she gave precise details, apart from date and house number, but her experience of what happened that night. When you go through sexual assault, you remember details about the assault, not where it happened or what time it happened. You’re more concerned about the details during the assault rather than what may be considered “irrelevant details” at the time of the assault.

You don’t have to tolerate anybody else’s ideas just like we don’t have to tolerate your leftist mental disorder and baby killing ways...you are in a losing battle. Socialism is dead...and liberalism is being seen for what it is ...a mental illness